Originally posted by King Kandy
If everything is God's essence, why should any differences exist at all? Why should there be "four realms" when it could have been uniform?
God is perfect. Yet I experience imperfection. I conclude, as the Holy Bible confirms, that there MUST exist a distinction between the Creator and His creation. Yet, God, being omnipresent, must exist everywhere. This is a paradox, that as I see it, can only be explained by the existence of multiple dimensions. If you have another explanation, or if you think that my logic is faulty, please let me know.
Originally posted by havedominion
God is perfect. Yet I experience imperfection. I conclude, as the Holy Bible confirms, that there MUST exist a distinction between the Creator and His creation. Yet, God, being omnipresent, must exist everywhere. This is a paradox, that as I see it, can only be explained by the existence of multiple dimensions. If you have another explanation, or if you think that my logic is faulty, please let me know.
Originally posted by King Kandy
If everything is God's essence, why should any differences exist at all? Why should there be "four realms" when it could have been uniform?
God is perfect. Yet I experience imperfection. I conclude, as the Holy Bible confirms, that there MUST exist a distinction between the Creator and His creation. Yet God, being omnipresent, must exist everywhere. This is a paradox, that as I see it, can only be explained by the existence of multiple dimensions. Perhaps it is possible for all of the dimesions to overlap and form a "uniform" dimension. I don't know, but, if that is the case, and my true existence is in more than one dimension (which I do believe), then, I am not always conscience of my experiences within the other dimension(s). If you have another explanation, or if you think that my logic is faulty, please let me know.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Why would God create a fragmented universe when he could create a uniform one?
Assuming that it is possible for a creator to create something without there being any distinction between the creator and that which was created, I have no clue how He would do it, especially since the world of my everyday conscience experiences is built upon space-time, and even if part of the creator is bound by space-time, certainly not all of Him is bound. You are not God! There is a distinction. God does not lie. Have you ever told a lie? By the fact that you use the word "God" as a "creator" who is creating something - a universe - you admit that there's a distinction.
Originally posted by havedominion
Assuming that it is possible for a creator to create something without there being any distinction between the creator and that which was created, I have no clue how He would do it, especially since the world of my everyday conscience experiences is built upon space-time, and even if part of the creator is bound by space-time, certainly not all of Him is bound. You are not God! There is a distinction. God does not lie. Have you ever told a lie? By the fact that you use the word "God" as a "creator" who is creating something - a universe - you admit that there's a distinction.
I recognize that creation is distinct and fragmented. If God's essence is uniform and omnipresent, there is no conceivable reason for creation to be that way. I can only conclude that either God does not exist, or God is not omnipresent.
Originally posted by Mindship
Perhaps this overall scenario, this all-encompassing process (an infinite regression?), could be the "ultimate form" of God. The "ultimate form" is omnipresent, but perhaps not the lesser manifestations.
Wow.
What a refreshing take on that.
A holistic definition of "super-God", I guess.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Why should there be a multiplicity of existence when there could be only one?
Highlander?
Originally posted by havedominion
God is perfect. Yet I experience imperfection. I conclude, as the Holy Bible confirms, that there MUST exist a distinction between the Creator and His creation. Yet God, being omnipresent, must exist everywhere. This is a paradox, that as I see it, can only be explained by the existence of multiple dimensions. Perhaps it is possible for all of the dimesions to overlap and form a "uniform" dimension. I don't know, but, if that is the case, and my true existence is in more than one dimension (which I do believe), then, I am not always conscience of my experiences within the other dimension(s). If you have another explanation, or if you think that my logic is faulty, please let me know.
This is very similar to a theory I have about the nature of man: our "reality" is actually a 4 dimensional "shadow" being cast by a 10 or 11 dimensional "light." That "light" is God. We are actually beings that have a 7 to 11 dimensional perception, with God, because we are His children, but in order to increase or understanding of our perceptions in that 10 or 11 dimensions, we must by "projected" to a very restrictive plane of existence.
We could actually have a near infinite # of projections taking place, all of them instant to our higher selves.
Edit - That fits, to some extent, with the "higher consciousness" idea that some have, but is a tad more complex. It's more of a converged idea than an original one of my own.
Originally posted by King Kandy
lol, maybe. But this is a serious question. I think it's a huge flaw in the "existence is the essence of God" line of thinking.
There should be only one to our self ...except ...in the multi-verses that we are exactly like ourselves: then it's like looking into a mirror in the deepest way possible: not even the most rigorous methods of science could distinguish the two copies from the multiverse. However, simply removing the individuals and testing them would create additional variables and would taint the samples, resulting in false-positives for differences.
Uhhh...does that make sense?
There would be alternate selves that would differ, ever so slightly, to our perceptions, of course. But there would be a very large number that no testing would result in legit differences. This just fits the often stated 'near infinite' number of universes theorizes to exist in one multiverse. The difference between one multiverse and another could be the lack of one quark or the presecence of an anti-quark because the laws of thermodynamics only have to apply to the "closed" system of each universe: this is why it's pratically infinite.
But, you are probably speaking about something else, now.
This may seem tautological, but, isn't it actually "The essence of God is existence?" I see it as that way. Again, you may mean something different than what I'm understanding of your point. Please elaborate if I'm wrong.
Originally posted by dadudemon
There should be only one to our self ...except ...in the multi-verses that we are exactly like ourselves: then it's like looking into a mirror in the deepest way possible: not even the most rigorous methods of science could distinguish the two copies from the multiverse. However, simply removing the individuals and testing them would create additional variables and would taint the samples, resulting in false-positives for differences.Uhhh...does that make sense?
Originally posted by dadudemon
There would be alternate selves that would differ, ever so slightly, to our perceptions, of course. But there would be a very large number that no testing would result in legit differences. This just fits the often stated 'near infinite' number of universes theorizes to exist in one multiverse. The difference between one multiverse and another could be the lack of one quark or the presecence of an anti-quark because the laws of thermodynamics only have to apply to the "closed" system of each universe: this is why it's pratically infinite.But, you are probably speaking about something else, now.
Originally posted by dadudemon
This may seem tautological, but, isn't it actually "The essence of God is existence?" I see it as that way. Again, you may mean something different than what I'm understanding of your point. Please elaborate if I'm wrong.
Originally posted by King Kandy
No, the way I said it was correct for what I was trying to get across. My point was, if God is omnipresent, then everything is composed of God's own essence... when you look at a rock, or a tree, you're literally looking at the stuff of God. And when everything is one with God, there's no reason why there should be any differences between anything. That was basically the point I was trying to raise.
That's a terrible argument. A human being is made of many different part but when you look at them you're looking at the stuff of humanity.
Originally posted by King Kandy
No, not even slightly.That may be true, but i'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with what I was saying.
No, the way I said it was correct for what I was trying to get across. My point was, if God is omnipresent, then everything is composed of God's own essence... when you look at a rock, or a tree, you're literally looking at the stuff of God. And when everything is one with God, there's no reason why there should be any differences between anything. That was basically the point I was trying to raise.
Okay, I understand you, now.
I thought you were commenting on the multiverse with your multiplicity comment and things about "being one." If we assume a multiverse, then there are "copies" of ourselves out there. There would also be practically an infinite number of universes in the multiverse. There would be so many "copies" of ourselves that we would encounter versions that would not be different, at all, from our current selves. In that regard, I thought you meant that all copies of ourselves should be "one" essence/being, from a holistic perspective. There are those that believe that and they believe we can communicate, indirectly, with our other selves. This is what I thought you meant by "one" and multiplicity.
About the rest of your post, yes, that's what most Christians believe: Jesus Christ created the universe and his "light" is in everything, including our selves. You can replace "light" with 'essence'.
And, yeah, there would be differences between everything. We each have our own self. This would be similar to an artist creating many sculptures: sure, the artist's style may be seen in each sculpture, but the sculpture is not the artist: they are definitely two separate entities. But, taking a step back, one could view that sculptor's life's work and say that the sum of his works partially define the previous sculpture I mentioned as well as the sculptor. They could then put together everything he said, did, made, etc. and say that the sum of those parts mostly makes him up. But, still, the sum of the parts is not equal to the whole, imo: he is still greater, holistically, than the sum of his parts.
This is similar to how I would view God and his Son: they are much much greater than the sum of the parts that we can perceive.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's a terrible argument. A human being is made of many different part but when you look at them you're looking at the stuff of humanity.
Originally posted by dadudemon
About the rest of your post, yes, that's what most Christians believe: Jesus Christ created the universe and his "light" is in everything, including our selves. You can replace "light" with 'essence'.And, yeah, there would be differences between everything. We each have our own self. This would be similar to an artist creating many sculptures: sure, the artist's style may be seen in each sculpture, but the sculpture is not the artist: they are definitely two separate entities. But, taking a step back, one could view that sculptor's life's work and say that the sum of his works partially define the previous sculpture I mentioned as well as the sculptor. They could then put together everything he said, did, made, etc. and say that the sum of those parts mostly makes him up. But, still, the sum of the parts is not equal to the whole, imo: he is still greater, holistically, than the sum of his parts.
I don't see how Pantheism can be a functional belief. At best, it is just obfuscation of language, at worst it is self contradictory and nonsensical.
Originally posted by King Kandy
One could definitely say that an artist is present in his work, but it would not be in a literal sense. If the artist literally WAS his work, and was omnipresent in his work, then there wouldn't be a distinction between him and his work. This isn't an argument against God in general, but it is an argument against someone who believes the sort of pantheism that was implicit in havedominion's arguments.I don't see how Pantheism can be a functional belief. At best, it is just obfuscation of language, at worst it is self contradictory and nonsensical.
We agree, there.
I do not think God or Jesus are truly omnipresent, omniscient, or omnipotent from logical assessments.
Also, profiled that last paragraph. 😄
Originally posted by King Kandy
What, because I used big words?
It's definitely pompous, peremptory, and supercilious. That, and it makes a damn good point (the real reason: eloquently making a good point in just a few words). Definitely worth remembering.
I can't wait to use it on James Cameron's arrogant face! 😆 😆 😆
Originally posted by King KandyOneness does not necessarily mean featurelessness...though there is a level to 'God' that is so unified there are no differences because there is no manifestation of form.
My point was, if God is omnipresent, then everything is composed of God's own essence... when you look at a rock, or a tree, you're literally looking at the stuff of God. And when everything is one with God, there's no reason why there should be any differences between anything.